JLNobody wrote:O.K., then "existence" consists of TWO dimensions that make up a more complex whole: a duality that is one. My perspective.
By the way, something that does not exist cannot be invisible (there is nothing to not be seen). But something that is invisible can exist (it may be too small to see or beyond the senses of a blind person).
Very good, duality that is one or, creation from a creator.
Can the creation through it's own perceive the creator?
I don't know which of us is the more obscure.
JLNobody wrote:I don't know which of us is the more obscure.
Better obscure than obtuse...
O.K., then. Which of us is the more obtuse?
JLNobody wrote:O.K., then. Which of us is the more obtuse?
hehe, I don't find you obtuse and I can be quite obtuse myself so you may be more obscure than me.
My obscurity comes from that I have so many radical ideas to share that things are bound to be obscured until I get to them in a discussion. I am obtuse because the ideas I impart are reactionary.
Really I find much of this a kind jest...
If you feel obscure then the best thing is to open up and relay your own angles and leave a mark for posterity. I am interested in your thoughts no matter how obscure or obtuse. We can only be faulted for our ideas if we do not allow them to evolve. Thx
You are right in that our expressed ideas may be initially "opaque" until they are exposed to the "evolution" of dialog. I know that some of the things I say are not clear--sometimes not even to me--until they have been qualified by the give and take of discussion. Trouble is, very few people actually respond to my offerings. Fortunately, those who do are very insightful and helpful.
JLNobody wrote:You are right in that our expressed ideas may be initially "opaque" until they are exposed to the "evolution" of dialog. I know that some of the things I say are not clear--sometimes not even to me--until they have been qualified by the give and take of discussion. Trouble is, very few people actually respond to my offerings. Fortunately, those who do are very insightful and helpful.
When you are interacting with someone who's prime purpose is not to illuminate but obfuscate, using Biblical quotes, bent logic, twisted semantics (even trying their hand at false General Semantics), rationalizations, and just plain inane dissertation, it's hard for you to be clear and reasonable.
Actually Rex, I don't think your ideas expressed here are all that radical. In fact, once we boil away the poetic prose it seems your proofs consist of the Prime Mover argument that was old when Augustine made it over 1500 years ago. To that you appear to be revisiting Cosmological ideas about the universe that were made obsolete in the mid-17th century. Those pre-scientific cosmologies are the coupled with Quantum Theory. Finally, you throw into the mix a (somewhat) literal interpretation of the Christian scriptures. Seems a mish-mash of materials that don't appear to mesh.
The observable macro-universe can be traced back to the Big Bang. It is true what we see in the night sky doesn't exist ... anymore. What we see is the arrival of light, photons emitted anywhere from a few seconds ago to millions of years long time passing. Science in the last three centuries gained a very firm understanding of the lives of stars and galaxies, and how they and their by-products became the heavy elements that make up matter. Newtonian Physics does a great job of describing things on a solar scale, but is inadequate to explain the physics of the larger universe. For that we have Einstein and his heirs.
The science of the micro-universe dates from the same time, the late 19th century. The physical laws that govern the micro-universe are different than those that prevail in the macro-universe, and are counter-intuitive. Electrons and the components of atomic nuclei aren't "things" moving in planet like orbits. In the micro-universe that descends down to the Planck Length, energy fields and probabilities rule. In the micro-universe its pretty hard to conduct traditional style experiments, or to directly observe anything, so we are reliant on higher mathematics, and associative effects. Though no one will ever "see" or directly observe the Planck scale, we know quite a lot about it and the effects of micro-universe physics because modern technology wouldn't work without it. Electricity and electronics are human scale expressions of micro-scale physics. The laws of the macro and micro universe are not the same, and they both are very different from the human-scaled universe we live in.
Different, but not contradictory. The micro-universe is the foundation for all the larger scales, and those larger scales have physics appropriate to their size in our universe. The Holy Grail of modern mathematics and physics is the development of a Unified Field Theory that ties all of these earlier, partial theories together into a Theory of Everything. For that purpose, String Theory is one of the most promising candidates so far, but we are continually being surprised by finding new facets of our universe.
Until only a few years ago, we believed that the gravity and entropy would at some point slow and halt universal expansion. Acting under the influence of gravity, the universe would slowly accelerate back to a Big Crunch. This idea of a universal cycles "beginning" and "ending" with a singularity was elegant, and infinite. Only in a finite universe is there any use for a Prime Mover.
You'd think we would catch on to the dangers of hubris, but we're only human. Less than a decade ago we discovered that there isn't enough gravity to slow the universe down, and contrary to our intuition, the rate of universal expansion is speeding up. Mathematicians and physicists were astounded, but already we have evidence that most of our universe is made up of unseen dark matter and dark energy, with the dark matter being converted to dark energy that causes an increased rate of expansion in space/time. There is indirect evidence that dark matter exists and exerts an effect on galaxy scaled objects.
One might suppose that in light of our current understanding of our universe that it is finite. Our universe came into existence with the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago, and our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Modern humans evolved around 100,000 years ago, and human civilizations have been around for only 5-6000 years, about 1 millionth the age of the earth. As stars cease to be and their last light arrives on earth, there are/will be fewer and fewer stars in our sky. The Milky Way and its companion galaxies (Andromeda) will continue until there is only darkness, and universal entropy causes our universe to fade into nothingness. Sure seems to be a beginning and ending of the universe where a Prime Mover might be a possibility.
Maybe not. What caused the Big Bang, and how did our universe come into being, and what really will happen when our universe has no future left in front of it? Here is where String Theory may be productive. Imagine that the meta-universe (that out of which the Big Bang created our experiential universe), produces from "time to time" a condition that results in a singularity ... a universe creating Big Bang. The meta-universe is the probability producing multi-dimensional reality underlying the Planck Length and all that springs from it. The meta-universe isn't so much a place, or thing, or space, or time ... and it is infinite with infinite possibilities. Once a Big Bang singularity occurs, a new universe of graduating larger scales (each with its own physical characteristics) is born and will continue until its "bubble" evaporates back into the probabilities that make up the meta-universe. The meta-universe then isn't cyclical, but infinitely produces universes that create their own space/time for a period before disintegration back into the meta-universe.
Life, consciousness and self awareness is a product of the human/solar-scale. That is about from about 10X-8 centimeter (the DNA molecule) up to about 10X10 centimeter (solar scale). At this scale, the universe appears to be made up of solid particles with predictable physical/chemical characteristics. Stars and galaxies are no more "alive" than are hydrogen and helium atoms. Our perceptions are, of course, wrong. Most of what we are is empty space and interacting energy fields that ultimately don't exists other than as one probability among many. We make do with four dimensions and are utterly unaware of all the other dimensions that are constantly and eternally throwing dice. It is on the human scale that discrimination exists, and out of discrimination we "living, thinking, and theorizing" dream-shapes create value as we compare this from that, now from then.
Our consciousness of multiplicity and the values we attach to the experiential world/universe is ultimately the source of suffering. When "this" is better than "that" we will always be torn by regret, disappointment and suffering. As a Buddhist, I believe that it is possible for sentient beings to experience (under the right conditions) the meta-universe from which all universes (and in infinity, all universes are possible and even probable) spring. The meta-universe is not conscious, it has no plan or purpose, nor does it have any "moral" sense, it just is ... infinitely. The meta-universe could with justice be called God, but not the god of Abraham.
Actually, most of the stars we see in the night sky most likely are still there. Most visible stars are less than 100 million light years from us. In cosmological terms that's not an impressively long time. Our Sun still looks much like it did 100 million years ago as does the Earth itself.
Indeed, most of the stars we see are within a few hundred million light years from us, and most of them will remain in view for several billion years into the future. What drops over the cosmic horizon, will be the early galaxies and stars that formed in our universe.
Nearer to our planet, the will not appear to change much for a long time. The sun varies in temperature, but as it ages it will become progressively hotter and will expand in diameter. Eventually the earth will be consumed by the sun as it enters its old age. The moon will in the future slowly move further away from us, reducing tidal effects. All of this is in the long range future, and the sun will continue to shine for more than 4 billion years.
In terms of scale (both spatially and in time) even our solar system is almost infinitesimal compared to the total universe we live in. The only thing that makes us special is the development of our species sentient nature. We don't know how many other species in this universe have also developed consciousness and cognition. We Homo Saps may be unique, or just one of millions "fortunate" enough to find the right conditions for intelligent manipulation of their environment.
There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone. There are over 200 billion galaxies. It would be the hight of arrogance and ignroance to assume we are the only ones that have achieved intelligence.
May be. Maybe not. We don't know, nor do we know how rare the conditions are that give rise to "higher" forms of life. Star density is greatest near the hub of each galaxy, and the radiation from close neighboring stars might not be conducive to advanced forms of life. If liquid water is a requirement, that would greatly reduce the odds. Most of the planetary systems we know of would not be good candidates for life, as we know it. Earth is very fortunate in having a moon and tidal forces. Our molten iron core makes plate tectonics possible, and our planetary climate is a nicely balanced system. Throw any of those, an countless other variables out by even a small percentage and life as we know it would not exist.
Whether we are "alone" or not isn't nearly as important as it is interesting to speculate about. What is important is that we should learn and understand as clearly and as nearly as possible the rules that govern our universe. Understanding may be the most important key to continued survival of our species, the only one we know of for certain. If we go extinct it won't matter a bit to this universe, or the meta-universe or any of the other universes that will exist.
Liquid water would seem to be abundant even in our own solar system. The Jovian moon Europa appears to have oceans 60 miles deep. Streaming geysers of liquid water have recently been observed flowing from a Saturnian moon. There is still a chance of underground water on Mars. Comets have been found with water and pre-organic molecules. I suspect the universe will be found to be rife with life albeit not necessarily life "as we know it".
Curious phrase "life as we know it".
How do we know it?
Is there really any distinction between what is alive and what is not, "as we see it"? ...if life itself is dependent on 'dead things' to exist on.
What I'm getting at is that the whole universe might be alive. It might be one living thing...
That is correct Cy. The Universe is a giant living organism. As each galxy possesses its own life. Even the Earth we stand on is a living creature.
Asherman wrote:Actually Rex, I don't think your ideas expressed here are all that radical. In fact, once we boil away the poetic prose it seems your proofs consist of the Prime Mover argument that was old when Augustine made it over 1500 years ago. To that you appear to be revisiting Cosmological ideas about the universe that were made obsolete in the mid-17th century. Those pre-scientific cosmologies are the coupled with Quantum Theory. Finally, you throw into the mix a (somewhat) literal interpretation of the Christian scriptures. Seems a mish-mash of materials that don't appear to mesh.
The observable macro-universe can be traced back to the Big Bang. It is true what we see in the night sky doesn't exist ... anymore. What we see is the arrival of light, photons emitted anywhere from a few seconds ago to millions of years long time passing. Science in the last three centuries gained a very firm understanding of the lives of stars and galaxies, and how they and their by-products became the heavy elements that make up matter. Newtonian Physics does a great job of describing things on a solar scale, but is inadequate to explain the physics of the larger universe. For that we have Einstein and his heirs.
The science of the micro-universe dates from the same time, the late 19th century. The physical laws that govern the micro-universe are different than those that prevail in the macro-universe, and are counter-intuitive. Electrons and the components of atomic nuclei aren't "things" moving in planet like orbits. In the micro-universe that descends down to the Planck Length, energy fields and probabilities rule. In the micro-universe its pretty hard to conduct traditional style experiments, or to directly observe anything, so we are reliant on higher mathematics, and associative effects. Though no one will ever "see" or directly observe the Planck scale, we know quite a lot about it and the effects of micro-universe physics because modern technology wouldn't work without it. Electricity and electronics are human scale expressions of micro-scale physics. The laws of the macro and micro universe are not the same, and they both are very different from the human-scaled universe we live in.
Different, but not contradictory. The micro-universe is the foundation for all the larger scales, and those larger scales have physics appropriate to their size in our universe. The Holy Grail of modern mathematics and physics is the development of a Unified Field Theory that ties all of these earlier, partial theories together into a Theory of Everything. For that purpose, String Theory is one of the most promising candidates so far, but we are continually being surprised by finding new facets of our universe.
Until only a few years ago, we believed that the gravity and entropy would at some point slow and halt universal expansion. Acting under the influence of gravity, the universe would slowly accelerate back to a Big Crunch. This idea of a universal cycles "beginning" and "ending" with a singularity was elegant, and infinite. Only in a finite universe is there any use for a Prime Mover.
You'd think we would catch on to the dangers of hubris, but we're only human. Less than a decade ago we discovered that there isn't enough gravity to slow the universe down, and contrary to our intuition, the rate of universal expansion is speeding up. Mathematicians and physicists were astounded, but already we have evidence that most of our universe is made up of unseen dark matter and dark energy, with the dark matter being converted to dark energy that causes an increased rate of expansion in space/time. There is indirect evidence that dark matter exists and exerts an effect on galaxy scaled objects.
One might suppose that in light of our current understanding of our universe that it is finite. Our universe came into existence with the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago, and our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Modern humans evolved around 100,000 years ago, and human civilizations have been around for only 5-6000 years, about 1 millionth the age of the earth. As stars cease to be and their last light arrives on earth, there are/will be fewer and fewer stars in our sky. The Milky Way and its companion galaxies (Andromeda) will continue until there is only darkness, and universal entropy causes our universe to fade into nothingness. Sure seems to be a beginning and ending of the universe where a Prime Mover might be a possibility.
Maybe not. What caused the Big Bang, and how did our universe come into being, and what really will happen when our universe has no future left in front of it? Here is where String Theory may be productive. Imagine that the meta-universe (that out of which the Big Bang created our experiential universe), produces from "time to time" a condition that results in a singularity ... a universe creating Big Bang. The meta-universe is the probability producing multi-dimensional reality underlying the Planck Length and all that springs from it. The meta-universe isn't so much a place, or thing, or space, or time ... and it is infinite with infinite possibilities. Once a Big Bang singularity occurs, a new universe of graduating larger scales (each with its own physical characteristics) is born and will continue until its "bubble" evaporates back into the probabilities that make up the meta-universe. The meta-universe then isn't cyclical, but infinitely produces universes that create their own space/time for a period before disintegration back into the meta-universe.
Life, consciousness and self awareness is a product of the human/solar-scale. That is about from about 10X-8 centimeter (the DNA molecule) up to about 10X10 centimeter (solar scale). At this scale, the universe appears to be made up of solid particles with predictable physical/chemical characteristics. Stars and galaxies are no more "alive" than are hydrogen and helium atoms. Our perceptions are, of course, wrong. Most of what we are is empty space and interacting energy fields that ultimately don't exists other than as one probability among many. We make do with four dimensions and are utterly unaware of all the other dimensions that are constantly and eternally throwing dice. It is on the human scale that discrimination exists, and out of discrimination we "living, thinking, and theorizing" dream-shapes create value as we compare this from that, now from then.
Our consciousness of multiplicity and the values we attach to the experiential world/universe is ultimately the source of suffering. When "this" is better than "that" we will always be torn by regret, disappointment and suffering. As a Buddhist, I believe that it is possible for sentient beings to experience (under the right conditions) the meta-universe from which all universes (and in infinity, all universes are possible and even probable) spring. The meta-universe is not conscious, it has no plan or purpose, nor does it have any "moral" sense, it just is ... infinitely. The meta-universe could with justice be called God, but not the god of Abraham.
Wow Asherman, I thank you for posting such a great description of the cosmos and it's unique character here for us to learn from. Some very nice clarity I do agree.
I agree with your synopsis right down until near the meta/dimensions part and the God of Abraham.
I tend to think that I am part of all religions, but not any single one of them in whole. Not associated to any over another but associated to truth for truth's sake alone.
I will address the meta dimensions stuff first and then I will talk about the God of Abraham.
I will first say again I respect your understanding and I thoroughly enjoyed what you wrote about how you see the cosmos.
I have long known about the quantum sub atomic world and I have also known about strings and dimensions (though I am not an expert). I go along with all of that. I just think there are even meta realms that are beneath the meta realms that cannot be scientifically measured.
The cosmos is like an onion, layers upon layers all interconnected and one layer evolves another layer and so on, all over time. But outside of all of the layers is a oneness and this neither created nor ever destroyed.
I am aware that quantum physicists do believe in a mover or ultimate observer but they do not believe in an all conscious God.
Well, this is where I differ slightly from them. I believe in layers below even the meta layers to layers of energy we have never even thought possible. When God created the universe he created it out of what he is, spirit. Thus he has an unique affinity with the universe. Thus the layers are interconnected. One layer is an "image" of another layer. Where intelligence is copied into each progressively smaller layer until humans and DNA obtain this intelligence and begin to emulate and imitate it.
As for the God of Abraham.
The God of Abraham was exactly that, the God of Abraham. He was God as Abraham saw God. Now Abraham did not see God that clearly (neither do most people), only about half of the time. But at least half of the time the God of Abraham was the TRUE God... NO religion can be completely devoid of truth. So there were parts of the God of Abraham that are parts of the universal God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Mohammed, Buddha etc... they are all part of God.
So if you believe in a true God, Abraham's God though seen crudely was still God trying to communicate with his creation. We cannot fault the true God for the way Abraham saw him. Yet the universal God still worked with Abraham in spite of Abraham's spiritual and fleshly weakness. Abraham was quite probably the best holy man the world had to offer at the time... Does that have to be Abraham's God's fault? Perhaps we are all partially at fault?
Rex,
I realized just now that your name is RexRed. I've always read and written RedRex... My apologies for turning you upside down.. :wink:
No, please keep turning him over wrong-side-up. He should be on his head -- all the blood has rushed to his feet and gawd knows where else. Of course, his big toe is larger.
I wonder if that once nano technology is embedded within DNA and sub atomic matter if it could grow and consume the universe? In effect uncreate the fabric of space and time and replace it with another more ordered or chaotic form. That in a nano second the trumpets will sound and the universe will uncreate or reorder itself for a new age.
